On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Daniel, Jeff, > >> I don't doubt this, that's why I do have a no-op fallback for >> emergencies. The discussion was about defaults. I still think that >> drop-wal-from-archiving-whenever is not a good one. > > Yeah, we can argue defaults for a long time. What would be better is > some way to actually determine what the user is trying to do, or wants > to happen. That's why I'd be in favor of an explict setting; if there's > a setting which says: > > on_archive_failure=shutdown > > ... then it's a LOT clearer to the user what will happen if the archive > runs out of space, even if we make no change to the defaults. And if > that setting is changeable on reload, it even becomes a way for users to > get out of tight spots.
I like your suggestion, save one thing: it's not a 'failure' or archiving if it cannot keep up, provided one subscribes to the view that archiving is not elective. I nit pick at this because one might think this has something to do with a non-zero return code from the archiving program, which already has a pretty alarmist message in event of transient failures (I think someone brought this up on -hackers but a few months ago...can't remember if that resulted in a change). I don't have a better suggestion that is less jargonrific though, but I wanted to express my general appreciation as to the shape of the suggestion. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers